This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
Mattmdavid (
talk·contribs) has been paid by Prairie Starfish Productions on behalf of Randy Olson.
Information to be added: After the sentence "He returned to Townsville, Australia as a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, working for the Australian government studying the problem of the crown-of-thorns starfish and its destructive effect on the Great Barrier Reef." add the following: "He conducted experiments and published papers arguing that the prevailing “Larval Starvation Hypothesis” was incorrect. His research is still a central part of the debate over what causes the starfish population explosions."
Explanation of issue: Adding further details to Science career section.
^Wolfe, Kennedy; Graba-Landry, Alexia; Dworjanyn, Symon A.; Byrne, Maria (2017). "Superstars: Assessing nutrient thresholds for enhanced larval success of Acanthaster planci, a review of the evidence". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 116 (1–2): 307–314. (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094041)
Reply 23-OCT-2019
Edit request declined
A claim made in the requested prose, that the subject's reasearch "is still a central part of the debate over what causes the starfish population explosions" has not been referenced, nor does it adequately explain how and in what way it remains a "central part" of the debate. Please provide references which speak not only to the subject's research, but the science community's response to that research as it fits into the wider narrative of starfish population theories. This information should then be requested to be added to the appropriate article on
starfish.
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Information to be added: After the sentence "He returned to Townsville, Australia as a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, working for the Australian government studying the problem of the crown-of-thorns starfish and its destructive effect on the Great Barrier Reef." add the following: "He conducted experiments and published papers arguing that the prevailing “Larval Starvation Hypothesis” was incorrect."
Explanation of issue: Adding further details to Science career section. Resubmitting this edit request without the line "His research is still a central part of the debate over what causes the starfish population explosions." as no direct sources to support this line could be found.
^Wolfe, Kennedy; Graba-Landry, Alexia; Dworjanyn, Symon A.; Byrne, Maria (2017). "Superstars: Assessing nutrient thresholds for enhanced larval success of Acanthaster planci, a review of the evidence". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 116 (1–2): 307–314. (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094041)
As I indicated in my review above, this information is germane to the article on
starfish or
Crown-of-thorns starfish, and is not necessarily germane to the subject's article — which is ostensibly about the subject and not the subject's research. Regards, Spintendo23:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Removing advertising-like content
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
I noticed this page has been flagged for having advertising-like content. I believe the offending section is "Story Circles Narrative Training Program" under Film Career. Since we don't have a good neutral 3rd party source to reference from, can we have the "Story Circles Narrative Training Program" section deleted entirely? Would that bring the wiki article back to a neutral enough stand point to have the advertising content warning removed?
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Have a list of suggestions below to help clean-up the article and remove the advertising tag. It should be noted I have a COI. Any help is appreciated. (And a thank you to Ronz for being so patient with me).
Remove “(born October 3, 1955)” - no reference available
Remove: “Then, in 2001, Olson collaborated with Jeremy Jackson, Steven Miller of University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and movie producer Gale Anne Hurd to create the Shifting Baselines Ocean Media Project.” Replace with: “In 2002, Olson collaborated with Jeremy Jackson and movie producer Gale Anne Hurd to create the Shifting Baselines Ocean Media Project.” Remove old press kit reference. (
http://www.sizzlethemovie.com/SIZZLE_PRESS_KIT.pdf). New reference supporting the change: [1]
Remove "Initial funding came from the three founding partners: The Ocean Conservancy, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Surfrider Foundation." - No reference available.
Remove: “Since then the project has produced a series of short films, television commercials, Flash videos and contests (stand up comedy, photography, video) all written and directed by Olson.” Replace with: “The project has produced a series of widely aired television commercials, short films, and informative online slideshows starring the likes of Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, and the Groundlings Improv Comedy Theater.” References supporting the change:: [2][3]
Only primary sources exist for the following section - no third party references available. Should this part be deleted? I'll leave it up for the editor who takes this to decide on whether to delete or not. “One piece of media produced was the Ocean Symphony Public Service Announcement (PSA) which featured a symphony of comic actors playing instruments they didn't know how to play, to symbolize ocean disharmony. This included Tom Arnold on kettle drums, Madeleine Stowe and Paul Michael Glaser on violin, Henry Winkler on harp, Sharon Lawrence on cymbals, and Jack Black as conductor.” Note: Direct link to YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC5P7mBu_XY&
Remove "40 Years of Silence In 2014 this film showing the POW experience of Olson's father, Colonel John Eric Olson, was presented and discussed at West Point USMA." - No reference available.
Any remaining primary sources in the article have third party sources as additional references.
I have effected a general cleanup of the article, removing the requested items.
Additional claims were either (a) removed or (b) not implemented as the suggested replacements — both of these actions occurring only when those items were referenced by the subject or those closely affiliated with the subject's work (such as the scripps.ucsd.edu source).
I have placed the filmed work as an embedded list rather than using level 3 subheadings, since an individually filmed work is not its own separate topic within the umbrella topic of Films. An article straddling the line of
WP:PROMO needs to demonstrate an economy of subheadings.
The Books section was revised to list just the book information without the extraneous descriptions of those works.
The Bibliography section was removed, as it duplicated all the items in the Books section. (This section also inexplicably contained references for each listed item, which unnecessarily padded the references section.)
The Criticism section ought to be incorporated into the main prose per
WP:CSECTION, but as there are two main sections (Science and Film) I'm not sure which section that should be.
Proposed changes - minor edits and advertising tag
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
I have a COI with Randy Olson and am hoping to have an editor make the following changes.
Minor change, increase the number of books from three to four. The line “He is also the author of three books aimed at helping communicate science more effectively with the general public.” should be changed to “He is also the author of four books aimed at helping communicate science more effectively with the general public.”
Add Surfline Magazine citation to this sentence: “The film documents the three massive swells that hit Fiji and Tahiti in 2011-12.” [1]
I was hoping whoever edits this could give advice on any sections that would still warrant the use of the Advertising Warning tag on this page. Spintendo and Ronz have done an excellent job of helping me clean up primary sources and offending material. Could whoever edits this notify me of any other offending material that would warrant the use of the Advertising Warning tag? If not and the article looks clean, I would request that the tag be removed.
I removed the mention of the books from the lede. It appears undue and promotional, especially without the required reference. If there is a reference that verifies most of it, please identify it.
"Science Communication: Narratively Speaking," “Don’t be such a scientist: talking substance in an age of style,” and “Houston, we have a narrative” are cited in this case study on improving storytelling for inspiring publics, promoting understanding of science, and engaging publics more deliberately in science. (
https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/18/05/JCOM_1805_2019_N01#X0-Olson2013)
Andrew Revkin, a former senior editor of Discover magazine and renowned scientist and educator, talks about “Connection : Hollywood storytelling meets critical thinking” and “Don’t be Such a Scientist” as books for helping with science communication in this article. (
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/can-storytelling-be-factual-and-effective/)
Fair point about the new White Rhino reference. It is probably unnecessary.
Are there any other offending sections you can find that would warrant the advertising tag?
My understanding is that book reviews lend little weight to subjects outside the book itself. Nothing provided demonstrates the need to highlight the number of books so. --
Ronz (
talk)
18:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That’s fair. But since he does have his books on science communication listed down in the Books section, should at least some mention be made in the lede? How about something simple like: “He is also the author of books on science communication.” I think the reviews I posted above should be proof enough to illustrate that. Thoughts?
Requests to remove the advertising maintenance template ought to first be asked of the editor who assigned the template in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. Regards, Spintendo09:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This
edit request by an editor with a
conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
I have a COI with Randy Olson and am hoping to have an editor make a change.
“Olson's family subsequently moved to Virginia, then Kansas City, Kansas where he attended high school and began college at the University of Kansas.” I’d like to specify the high school using a secondary source: “Olson's family subsequently moved to Virginia, then Kansas City, Kansas where he attended Shawnee Mission Northwest High School and began college at the University of Kansas.”
Hi, i was reviewing this edit request. I am not sure that this information is really relevant... Besides, the source provided does not look totally reliable. Unless some other editor disagrees, i would recommend not implementing the change on these grounds.
Victrue (
talk)
17:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply